Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission defends parking standard and 10% affordable set-aside; council requests parcel-level feasibility analysis
Summary
The Planning Commission told the finance committee that county research and local analysis support a 0.7 cars-per-unit parking baseline for transit-adjacent multifamily and that a 10% affordable-unit set-aside is common; council asked staff and commissioners to run parcel-level pro formas to clarify revenue and viability trade-offs.
Council and the Planning Commission used Monday’s meeting to press for more transparency on the analytic foundations of recent planning recommendations on parking, density and affordable housing.
Jennifer, representing the Planning Commission, said the parking recommendation (about 0.7 cars per multifamily unit) draws from Montgomery County Planning Commission research and a borough parking study. She said the commission targeted comparative typologies in transit-adjacent locations to calibrate the guidance for areas like Narberth.
Commission members and councilors asked for parcel-level feasibility work so councilors can compare revenue and costs across development typologies. Jennifer and other commissioners said the commission has prepared scenario sketches and historical "what-if" comparisons but has not run detailed pro formas for every parcel. The commission suggested convening a demonstration with Aaron Graves, who the commission described as contributing finance-side expertise: "he is a managing director at Kushman and Wakefield" and has provided numbers on market assumptions and expected yields.
Architect and planning-commission participant Jennifer summarized key feasibility drivers: land acquisition, construction costs, permitting and soft costs, utility connections and parking structures can materially change project viability. She said that in current market conditions a multifamily project typically needs roughly a 7% yield to be financially viable and that mandatory affordable units reduce net operating income the market-rate units must carry.
Council members discussed process reforms to reduce the marginal cost of development approvals: multiple hearings and required consultant representation can add thousands of dollars in professional fees, which can be especially burdensome for small projects. Commission members suggested expanding by-right approvals or streamlining hearings for projects that meet code to reduce those marginal costs.
On affordable housing, staff said a 10% set-aside is widely used as a balance between deliverable units and project feasibility, and that bonus-based incentive models sometimes produce better results than rigid mandates for small-scale development.
Next steps: council asked planning staff and the commission to arrange a pro-forma demonstration (with specific parcel scenarios and assumptions) so council can better understand revenue differences between housing typologies and the fiscal trade-offs of proposed zoning changes.
